LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/dushyant-janbandhu-vs-m-s-hyundai-autoever-india-pvt-ltd-20241211/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Dushyant Janbandhu vs M/s Hyundai Autoever India Pvt. Ltd.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
11 December 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 14299 of 2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Sandeep Mehta
Citation
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 492 : 2024 INSC 966
Acts & Sections
Payment of Wages Act, 1936 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 12 S.C.R. 492 : 2024 INSC 966
Issue for consideration
High Court allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed an arbitrator. Whether the disputes relating to nonpayment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination order were arbitrable.
Headnote

Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – ss.15(2), 22 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(A) – Disputes relating to non-payment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination order, if arbitrable: Held: No – Disputes related to non-payment of wages and legality and propriety of termination which are non-arbitrable and the appellant approached the statutory authorities under the PW Act and the ID Act much prior to the filing of petition under Section 11(6) by the respondent and thus, the disputes were anyway pending before the statutory authorities which would exercise their jurisdiction to the exclusion of civil courts – Further, the alleged violation of clause 19 of the appointment order relating to non-disclosure obligation was only an afterthought as it was not raised in the show cause notice, inquiry report, chargesheet and termination order and as such is non-existent – Section 11(6) petition filed by the respondent was an abuse of process intended to threaten the appellant for having approached the statutory authorities under the PW Act and the ID Act – Judgment of High Court set aside – Petition filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act dismissed with cost – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. [Paras 17, 12, 14, 18]

Keywords: Non-payment of wages · Termination order · Legality and validity of the termination order · Disputes whether arbitrable · Disputes non-arbitrable · Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 · Industrial Court · Charge memo · Non-cooperation · Absenteeism · Disciplinary action · Jurisdiction to the exclusion of the civil courts · Arbitration agreement · Arbitrator unilaterally appointed · Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave Granted. 2. Questioning the appointment of an arbitrator by the High Court of Madras under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,1 by the order impugned before us,2 the appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that the dispute with the respondentemployer, M/S Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd. is governed by statute under the Payment of Wages Act, 19363 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.4 In the normal course and in recognition of judicial restraint, as incorporated in Section 5 of the Act, we wou
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →